History
  • No items yet
midpage
Department of Transportation v. Roberts
246 S.E.2d 293
Ga.
1978
Check Treatment

*1 DEPARTMENT OF 33103. TRANSPORTATION v.

ROBERTS et al.

Hill, 1977, 15, On in August this case filed appellees companion complaints1 seeking injunctive relief and E. naming Snell, Contractor, Inc.,2 as defendants R. appellants, the Georgia Department Transportation ("DOT”) and C. Matthews Contracting W. Inc. The plaintiffs alleged were owners of certain motels which, prior a abutted general as U. S. highway known The Highway plaintiffs ("the motels”) further U. S. 41 alleged when was converted to a limited now called Interstate portion a the former northbound lanes of U. S. 41 was to a converted service road which provided access to their property, entrance and exit ramps were constructed between the service road and the time, northbound I-75.3 At lanes of the same was bridge constructed which carried the northbound lanes of Georgia 85 over 1-75 the Highway and into in directly front the properties, off-ramp was constructed to traffic on a the southbound carry loop from lanes of 1-75 to near Ga. 85 the crossed the point where bridge described No above. access was provided to the southbound 1-75. lanes of public

On DOT entered into contract April with Matthews which for removal of both the bridge over 1-75 and northbound carrying to 1-75 from the local service road. Ac- cording DOT, purpose of the construction was by 1-75 near 1-285 portion constructing make safer by additional north south lanes and eliminating 1 The consolidated the trial court. by cases were Snell, Contractor, Inc., E. R. voluntarily was 23, 1977. dismissed without on prejudice road (formerly parallel 3 I-75 and the service other, south, north and with the running each service east on and off-ramps. road of 1-75 connected motels road. are located on the east side of the service proximity caused weaving pattern dangerous ramp from to the off-bound the on-bound to 1-285. 1-75 order, restraining temporary

The motels obtained on on-ramp, in the further changes prohibiting had at issue date, bridge By August *2 between removed; there is been already at had been removed as to whether parties issued. On time the order in- an Clayton County entered Court Superior The trial the motels. favor of terlocutory injunction on the occurring is that "No construction court found so as to obstruct properties to the contiguous there is but properties; the service road to access from except by to 1-75 the service road no means of access from 3,000 feet.” route of approximately more circuitous effected trial found that the construction court further access, the motels’ easements taking of the court relief. Thus injunctive were entitled alter, anything doing the defendants restrained the motels’ access or interfere with deny filed, until were complaints date the as it existed on the rights the motels’ acquired DOT should have such time as restore the further ordered DOT to either access, and in which it existed on the to the condition filed, or to institute eminent were complaints date the property rights acquire proceedings domain its The court then days. of access4 within upon this court stayed pending ruling be order would of appeal. of notices filing enumerations DOT twelve presents In its appeal, one; is, however, to reach necessary, It only error. is have been relief should not DOT asserts remedy an at adequate motels had because the granted action in inverse bring could án law in that condemnation. inverse in this case for the motels

We agree such the motels denied DOT to condemnation. subject

condemnation at adequate remedy law.5 The construction at issue is not occurring on their property; it is not even occurring service road which is adjacent to their rather on the ramp which provides access from the service road to 1-75. Plaintiffs’ properties Furthermore, remain intact. access and egress to and from those are not completely destroyed but are simply made more "circuitous.” In these circumstan- ces, equity will not enjoin the State Department Transportation. MacDonald, 221 Ga. 363) State Hwy. Dept. Strickland, (1965); 213 Ga. 785 Atlanta, Moore v. City of (1958); (1883). In 213 Ga. at the court said: "Since the decision in Moore v. City of Atlanta, 70 Ga. has been the settled rule of law not, that equity will by interlocutory injunction, interfere with a public improvement in which no part the property of the citizen was actually taken. [Cits.]” Pyrites Chestatee Co. v. Cavenders Creek Gold Mining (1903), involved the attempted condemnation aby foreign mining corporation of water *3 and inapposite here. reversed. All the

Judgment Justices concur. 1978 Argued January 8 197 Decided June Rehearing denied June Bolton, General, Arthur K. Attorney Joy, William C. General, Attorney Assistant for appellant. Mobley, Gambrell, Mitchell,

Gambrell & David H. Clarke, Anderson, Anderson, Sr., Pate & Paul H. Paul H. Anderson, Jr., appellees. for Rehearing.

On Motion for motels cite By motion for rehearing, Baxter, Bd. v. (1928), MARTA v. Datry, (1975), 5 In relegating the motels to whatever remedies they may have at law, we express no opinion on the merits of those claims. of access to right their

insist they became continued when their of direct access right have a and 1-75. shows, case, the easement the Baxter

As [exit], [entry], egress right ingress "includes a locus a to quo from [reentry], right way regress forth to other any and from the latter ad quern, the locus or back to the lawfully go, party may spot to which Baxter, 133. It has p. v. Bd. Hwy. locus a State quo.” egress right ingress, not been shown that to the locus ad quern from the locus a quo regress the locus a has quo, or back to any spot there to other from have presently they shows The evidence been taken. road to their of vehicular right a usable 576-577), (cf. 235 Ga.at Datry, supra, MARTA property they have roadway, and from their access under law of direct right have a not shown County v. See highway. type particular Tift 527) (1963). Hence, Smith, right shown that motels have not supra. relief. State Hwy. concur, All the Justices denied. rehearing

Motion for Bowles, J., who dissents. except et al. v. JOHNSON DAVIS et al. Marshall, case, the Bank seeks

In the present a deed to secure debt to set aside its cancellation certain real estate. The prior executed owner of enjoin Supply Company, bank also seeks to Dealers foreclosing creditor of erstwhile judgment The trial court dismissed the property. *4 determined for failure to state a claim for relief. We have a claim for relief. We does state therefore reverse. Bank took

These are facts: debt from John- note and deed to secure promissory son, purchase money to secure a

Case Details

Case Name: Department of Transportation v. Roberts
Court Name: Supreme Court of Georgia
Date Published: Jun 9, 1978
Citation: 246 S.E.2d 293
Docket Number: 33103
Court Abbreviation: Ga.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.